DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[elder999]

To me. I don't care what you believe as long as it has no negative impact on me and mine.

Otherwise, believe what you want.

And I'm saying that the proof is there, for those that seek it.

Of course, the Creator's much bandied indifference to His creation, could have as much to do with mankind's indifference to Him/Her/It/Foot, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

From my POV, teaching creationism in the classroom is a step back towards a time where superstitions ruled. Where innocent women were burned for witches and the free thinking drawn and quartered. I'd rather not live in that world.

Me too.

Bottom line: Science makes an assertion and provides evidence for it. Faith makes an assertion and simply expects you to believe it without evidence.

Depends upon wchich "faith" you're talking about, I guess-like I said, the evidence is there for those that seek it.

I'm an evidence kinda' guy, so ...I'll go with science. You go with what works for you.

I'm a scientist, and I do.

 

[Andrew Green]

That the evidence is there does not impact how the person who believes in it does so.

It most certainly does when the person is aware that the evidence does exist, even if they have not taken the time to study it in depth.

 

[celtic_crippler]

And I'm saying that the proof is there, for those that seek it.

Of course, the Creator's much bandied indifference to His creation, could have as much to do with mankind's indifference to Him/Her/It/Foot, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.



Me too.



Depends upon wchich "faith" you're talking about, I guess-like I said, the evidence is there for those that seek it.





I'm a scientist, and I do.

Proof of a supreme intelligence or proof of a specific religious based diety?

I don't hold the same opinion for both.

 

[elder999]

Proof of a supreme intelligence

.

 

[arnisador]

anyone with the talent and the ability can acquire the knowledge to understand the evidence of any scientific theory

I believe in the saying that any scientist who cannot explain his work to an 11 year old is a fraud.

The difference between science and religion imo is verification of results.

That's certainly a big part of it--or, expecting that verification could and should be done, more fundamentally.

 

[arnisador]

Doesn't mean we won't eventually find some coded message from "God" in our DNA, though.....

That would make a great movie.

Well, it's certainly made for several bad ones already, hasn't it?

The difference is that the evidence is there, published, made public and available to anyone that wants to see it.

Yup. Verifiability, as the Wikipedians would say.

 

[arnisador]

And I'm saying that the proof is there, for those that seek it.

How does this differ from the proof for scientific theories? One has to do the experiments, after all...would I only find theological proof if I chose in advance to believe it existed? Quantum physics is always an unexpected surprise...I don't have to wish for it.

 

[elder999]

How does this differ from the proof for scientific theories? One has to do the experiments, after all...would I only find theological proof if I chose in advance to believe it existed?

Well, I really couldn't tell you. I'd have to show you

Do you want me to show you?\

.Quantum physics is always an unexpected surprise...I don't have to wish for it.

"God"-just like the quanta-is surprising. No need for wishing, just looking.

 

[arnisador]

Hmmmm...still sounds to me like one must be pre-disposed to the theory!

 

[elder999]

Hmmmm...still sounds to me like one must be pre-disposed to the theory!

Nah. You wouldn't be the first to walk away saying it was something else. And you wouldn't be the first to walk away convinced it was God. It's pretty much up to the individual-in line with "God's indifference," and all that-we can be just as indifferent to Him/Her/It/Foot, as He/She/It/IT/ appears to be to us. :lol:

 

[celtic_crippler]

Nah. You wouldn't be the first to walk away saying it was something else. And you wouldn't be the first to walk away convinced it was God. It's pretty much up to the individual-in line with "God's indifference," and all that-we can be just as indifferent to Him/Her/It/Foot, as He/She/It/IT/ appears to be to us. :lol:

Why would one think something like a supreme being would feel indifference, or any other human related emotion or suffer from any human flaws for that matter?

 

[Xinglu]

Why would one think something like a supreme being would feel indifference, or any other human related emotion or suffer from any human flaws for that matter?

Because of the assumption that we are like God in some way or shape.

 

[Sukerkin]

The difference being that humans actually exist.

Apologies to those who have devout beliefs but, honestly, if someone were to propose such a thing as a Creator Deity afresh today how far do you think they would get before the nice men with the white van and the jacket that buttons up the back came along?

I don't mock peoples sincerity of faith but 'religion' is a dangerous thing to allow to persist unchallenged in a world that is a long way from the primative roots where it was a necessary comfort in a hostile and inexplicable world.

And when Holy Scripture becomes a linchpin of the support for war or a cause of war in and of itself, then it is time to rethink the parameters that bound an otherwise commendable philosophy of 'be excellent to each other'.

 

[arnisador]

Apologies to those who have devout beliefs but, honestly, if someone were to propose such a thing as a Creator Deity afresh today how far do you think they would get before the nice men with the white van and the jacket that buttons up the back came along?

Ask the Scientologists, or even the Mormons (who take a fair amount of mockery).

As an aside, a colleague went to the talk yesterday and said that Richard Dawkins gave a half-hour reading, and was blunt in responding to questions during the hour-long Q&A session.

 

[celtic_crippler]

"If you want to get rich, you start a religion." - L. Ron Hubbard founder and creator of Scientology

also interestingly....

"The only way to control people is to lie to them." - L. Ron Hubbard founder and creator of Scientology

...this isn't hieroglyphics on an ancient tablet whose translation is debatable, it was said in plain english. Yet, even though this is all a matter of public record people still follow Scientology as their religion.

 

[elder999]

Why would one think something like a supreme being would feel indifference, or any other human related emotion or suffer from any human flaws for that matter?

Richard Dawkins himself has spoken of the "indifference of the Universe," in a similar vein, as being more atractive in its disorder:

I believe that an orderly universe, one indifferent to human preoccupations, in which everything has an explanation even if we still have a long way to go before we find it, is a more beautiful, more wonderful place than a universe tricked out with capricious ad hoc magic.
[SIZE=-1]-- Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (contributed by Ray Franz)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Blindness to suffering is an inherent consequence of natural selection. Nature is neither kind nor cruel but indifferent.
[SIZE=-1]-- Richard Dawkins, on describing how one need only look upon nature where the wasp lays her eggs inside the body of a living caterpillar in order to dispense with the idea that the Universe is supervised by a benevolent deity, in The Devil's Chaplain (2004)[/SIZE][/SIZE]

Now, while he's certainly not offering it as proof of God, or belief in God-he also hasn't , as you put it, has ascribed a human emotion and motive to Nature in describing it as "indifferent"-in that he's describing a lack of such emotion of motive.


It does seem to be, though, one of the arguments put forward a geat deal by some atheists as to why there isn't a "God,"-or, at the very least, that if there is one, which can "neither be proven nor disproven," then worshiping him is a waste fo time and human energy.

Austin Cline,, the Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism, calls this the "argument from evil."

One of the most popular and perhaps most effective arguments against both the existence of gods and believing in gods is known as the "Argument from Evil." It's a popular argument because it's not one which requires a great deal of sophistication or philosophical education to understand. It's effective because even the weakest forms of the argument make a strong case that gods, or at least any beings that look very much like the gods people tend to believe in, probably don't exist. Many people who end up as atheists are inspired to take a much harder look at their religion and their theism after being forced to face the problem of evil and suffering in the world. Thus, even if the argument doesn't disprove gods, it starts people down the road of questioning and skepticism.

Logical and Deductive Arguments from Evil


The earliest formulation of the Argument from Evil comes from the Greek philosopher Epicurus, writing in the early 3rd century BCE:

Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot,
or he can but does not want to,
or he cannot and does not want to,
or lastly he can and wants to.

If he wants to remove evil, and cannot,
he is not omnipotent;
If he can, but does not want to,
he is not benevolent;
If he neither can nor wants to,
he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent;
But if God can abolish evil and wants to,
how does evil exist?​

This is a logical or deductive Argument from Evil because it attempts to show that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. There are many variations on this but there is also another category called the evidential or inductive Argument from Evil. Arguments of this type merely try to demonstrate that the existence of God is highly unlikely given the existence of amount of evil in the world.

Logical or deductive forms of the Argument from Evil are both the strongest and the weakest, depending on how you look at them. They are the strongest because they can decisively disprove the existence of God; they are the weakest because God has to be defined very narrowly and specifically in order for the argument to get anywhere. These forms of the argument disprove a particular sort of god, but not many others. Obviously the existence of a malevolent or weak god wouldn't be disproved here. The existence of the ancient Norse or Egyptian gods also wouldn't be disproved by this argument.
Evidential and Inductive Arguments from Evil


Evidential or inductive forms of the Argument from Evil don't try to show that the existence of gods is impossible, just improbable. This means that even if you accept the argument, you aren't forced to reject the existence of any gods; you are, however, forced to regard the existence of gods as highly unlikely, and therefore probably not worth believing in.
Such an argument might, for example, argue that a sufficiently benevolent and powerful being that warrants the label "god" would be able to at least reduce the amount of suffering in world — not eliminate it entirely, just reduce it. Therefore, the existence of any unjustified and unnecessary suffering indicates that such a being probably doesn't exist. Such forms of the Argument from Evil don't generally justify denying the existence of gods, but it does justify rejecting belief in the existence of gods and being an atheist.

Of course, "God's indifference" is an argument put forth by various scriptures, that do ascribe human emotions and motives to a supreme being-but that wasn't at all what I was talking about. In fact, I'd probably argue that any direct experience of "God" usually takes place independent of creed or scripture-without traipsing too far down the road of what "God is," and what "meaning" there is in scripture, anyway.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Of course, "God's indifference" is an argument put forth by various scriptures, that do ascribe human emotions and motives to a supreme being-but that wasn't at all what I was talking about. In fact, I'd probably argue that any direct experience of "God" usually takes place independent of creed or scripture-without traipsing too far down the road of what "God is," and what "meaning" there is in scripture, anyway.

Two comments here - not really an argument, but just comments.

First, Dawkins assumes that either the universe obeys natural laws and is without a creator, or it has a creator and it therefore subject to magic and hocus-pocus.

There is no reason to presume these are the only two operating conditions. There is no logical reason that there cannot be a creator which conforms to natural laws. Like the orderly rules he presumes will someday be discovered.

Second, with regard to the argument against god from the problem of evil, the religionists would reply that the entire argument presumes that our understanding of evil is God's understanding of evil. This would allow another logical construct:

That God is able to remove evil, but chooses not to, not because He is not benevolent, but for benevolent reasons we cannot discern. If we attribute God with omniscience as well as omnipotence, we must acknowledge that God's understanding of evil may be different (and presumably superior) to our own.

There is also the argument of the greater good, which overcomes evil. One often chooses small evils when there is a greater good to be served, even when that greater good has yet to come to pass. What we humans perceive as evil may be a small and tolerable situation to an omnipotent being who is using it to achieve a greater good.

And finally, the problem of Free Will. Presuming God granted his creations with Free Will, one cannot presume that God put evil in the world. Evil may be a creation of man's Free Will that God abhors but chooses not to remove not because He is not omnipotent or benevolent, but because He gave us the power to choose good or evil and honors that gift.

Certainly it does not solve the equation, but it does defeat the argument from the problem of evil. As far as I know, there is a failure condition for every logical proposition for or against the existence of God. I have not see an irrefutable argument yet, pro or con.

 

[Ramirez]

There is no reason to presume these are the only two operating conditions. There is no logical reason that there cannot be a creator which conforms to natural laws. Like the orderly rules he presumes will someday be discovered.

If that is the case then he is subject to natural laws thus science is supreme over this "god", or there as Dawkins points out there must be another God who set up the physical laws and we are back to the endless question ....if everything requires a creator then who create God?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If that is the case then he is subject to natural laws thus science is supreme over this "god", or there as Dawkins points out there must be another God who set up the physical laws and we are back to the endless question ....if everything requires a creator then who create God?

As he himself pointed out, we don't yet know what all the natural laws are. We do not know that there is not a law consistent with a self-creating creator. I agree that it's a bit of an endless loop, but then again, so are lots of things in the quantum world. Being self-referential does not seem to be an exclusionary attribute for reality.

As I recall reading in Robert Anton Wilson's book "Prometheus Rising," he was once approached by a woman who told him she believed the universe was balanced on the back of a gigantic turtle. When he asked her on what the turtle stood, she said it stood on the back of an even larger turtle. And on what did that turtle stand? The woman thought a moment, brightened, and announced that it was "Turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

 

[Omar B]

If that is the case then he is subject to natural laws thus science is supreme over this "god", or there as Dawkins points out there must be another God who set up the physical laws and we are back to the endless question ....if everything requires a creator then who create God?

Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he could not eat it?